Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What about the tired argument,' This is Britain, We will always be ok?' :mellow:

As OK as in the 1930s or 70s, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Mum has been clearing out a flat of a old lady she worked for, who has now died. She has found 5 sovs with the reciept dated 1974 when they cost £31.50 each. They now cost £228.50 or 7x more.

 

Interestingly, she bought her house in 1978 for £11,150 and now she is trying to sell for £250,000 which is 22x more.

 

I think think this makes gold look very cheap still.

 

I have a reciept for a £230 1oz gold maple. I would give anything to be able to buy gold at that price now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From FOFOA:

 

In fact, my position is that silver will rise just fine against a falling dollar. In fact, it may gain a little additional levitation over other commodities due to the lingering monetary sentimentality put forth by Trace and others. But it will also be limited by the economy. Where it will not follow gold is through the change in both market and function that will deliver a real, non-inflation-adjusted massive one-time return. The Freegold reset as the gold market turns physical and the gold function becomes the monetary store of value par excellence. A free market Giant event being front run by the Central Banks and a few small physical gold advocates.

 

Perhaps a worthy first post in the thread.

 

http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/12/windmill...aw-men-and.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I thought we will have just 1 gold thread running 1000 pages with a trillion views.

 

Any how, wishing you all a golden new year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From FOFOA:

 

 

 

Perhaps a worthy first post in the thread.

 

http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/12/windmill...aw-men-and.html

 

 

I feel Mish Shedlock has lost the argument against FOFOA. Mish is a self annointed king of bloggers. But FOFOA is the emperor of bloggers. I see deflationists loosing the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy New Year. Please use the 2011 Gold thread from now on...

 

WHY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No problem, I merged the threads.

 

Can I ask a quick question please?

 

What on earth is wrong with you guys? I know this is a popular thread and it seems everyone wants to have some control over it.. why not just utilise Occams Razor and keep it simple.

 

One Gold Thread, pinned. END OF. - all of this toing and froing is making me dizzy and i haven't started drinking yet..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What on earth is wrong with you guys?

Splitting the thread into monthly ones was originally Bubb's idea. This seems to be his method for his own trading diary, like a blog somehow. For this more general gold discussion thread it seems to be not the right format. Also, no one neatly collected the monthly threads etc., they where just sinking down to the floor of the ocean.

 

One Gold Thread, pinned. END OF.

That's what I did. Sylvester started the "2011" thread more accidentially. No harm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I know this is a popular thread and it seems everyone wants to have some control over it.. ...

You're on to something there. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel Mish Shedlock has lost the argument against FOFOA. Mish is a self annointed king of bloggers. But FOFOA is the emperor of bloggers. I see deflationists loosing the war.

While my personal views are possibly not that different from FOFOA's, I think he, FOA, and A himself overcomplicate and overphilosophize things, with not all that much value added. Just like some other posters/bloggers out there. :rolleyes:

 

EDIT: That reminds me that Steve once wrote something on the topic: http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3335

Philosophy. It's a waste of time. Here's the answer to all those questions. Now they can go get proper jobs.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is very good and useful philosophy, and I have spent a lot of time on philosophic questions in my life. But then there is also endless, mostly pointless waffle*. I don't say FOFOA's writings are pointless, but I am sure that his main thesis can be summarized on one A4 sheet.

 

*Often people who lack a natural sciences background tend to such. It's understandable: if you don't understand the basic laws of the world and if you lack the ability to describe them in a concise manner (in particular: maths), you better write/talk a lot to hide this fact. Prime examples: lawyers, psychologists, "softer" MBA types, and, yes, also philosophers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*Often people who lack a natural sciences background tend to such. It's understandable: if you don't understand the basic laws of the world and if you lack the ability to describe them in a concise manner (in particular: maths), you better write/talk a lot to hide this fact. Prime examples: lawyers, psychologists, "softer" MBA types, and, yes, also philosophers.

God help us when philosophy comes into disrepute [or patronized]. Philosophy asks of science what exactly the nature of scientific knowledge is. Does it portray reality, or is it more about power over our environment? An open-minded enquiring philosophy always reminds us how little we really know, which in turn keeps hubris at bay.

 

Anyone interested in getting beyond a little knowledge in science soon becomes interested in the history and philosophy of science. What it boils down to is the nature of ideas, how they have a power over our [collective] imagination, and how without a philosophic understanding we forget their historic, arbitrary, and hypothetical [as if] nature, or in short, lose our sense of humor, which Sartre termed the "sin of seriousness". I think he was also referring to the dogmatic frame of mind here.

 

A thread on ideas posted a while back:

http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index....ic=7019&hl=

 

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly supposed. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else

John Maynard Keynes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more, simplicity is key. The more points you can make per sentence the better and if you can't even make one, then don't post it!

 

overcomplicate and overphilosophize things, with not all that much value added. Just like some other posters/bloggers out there. :rolleyes:

 

EDIT: That reminds me that Steve once wrote something on the topic: http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3335

 

Now, don't get me wrong, there is very good and useful philosophy, and I have spent a lot of time on philosophic questions in my life. But then there is also endless, mostly pointless waffle*. I don't say FOFOA's writings are pointless, but I am sure that his main thesis can be summarized on one A4 sheet.

 

*Often people who lack a natural sciences background tend to such. It's understandable: if you don't understand the basic laws of the world and if you lack the ability to describe them in a concise manner (in particular: maths), you better write/talk a lot to hide this fact. Prime examples: lawyers, psychologists, "softer" MBA types, and, yes, also philosophers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RH, I am not disputing that philosophy has an important function in the world, only I think one can overdo it.

 

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly supposed. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else

John Maynard Keynes

Hmm, I am not sure whether this is good or bad. :unsure: However, mostly the world is ruled by the laws of nature. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While my personal views are possibly not that different from FOFOA's, I think he, FOA, and A himself overcomplicate and overphilosophize things, with not all that much value added. Just like some other posters/bloggers out there. :rolleyes:

 

EDIT: That reminds me that Steve once wrote something on the topic: http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3335

 

Now, don't get me wrong, there is very good and useful philosophy, and I have spent a lot of time on philosophic questions in my life. But then there is also endless, mostly pointless waffle*. I don't say FOFOA's writings are pointless, but I am sure that his main thesis can be summarized on one A4 sheet.

 

*Often people who lack a natural sciences background tend to such. It's understandable: if you don't understand the basic laws of the world and if you lack the ability to describe them in a concise manner (in particular: maths), you better write/talk a lot to hide this fact. Prime examples: lawyers, psychologists, "softer" MBA types, and, yes, also philosophers.

 

 

I couldn't agree more, simplicity is key. The more points you can make per sentence the better and if you can't even make one, then don't post it!

 

 

yup, agreed. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*Often people who lack a natural sciences background tend to such. It's understandable: if you don't understand the basic laws of the world and if you lack the ability to describe them in a concise manner (in particular: maths), you better write/talk a lot to hide this fact. Prime examples: lawyers, psychologists, "softer" MBA types, and, yes, also philosophers.

Yes, this is very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then there is also endless, mostly pointless waffle*.

 

That would be from academic philosophers who feel they must justify their well paid existence by always saying something; whereas good philosophers say very little, they mostly observe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RH, I am not disputing that philosophy has an important function in the world, only I think one can overdo it.

 

 

John Maynard Keynes

 

Hmm, I am not sure whether this is good or bad. :unsure: However, mostly the world is ruled by the laws of nature. :)

An abstraction. The world of markets and economies are "ruled" by the vagaries of human nature [not philosophy, ideology, or science].

 

Losing sight of this can lead to all sorts of deterministic errors... such as assuming prices will move mechanically one way.

 

An internet forum should be a space for thought, not edification. Philosophy is just thought, and teaches people to doubt bad thinking and bad faith. Most people seem to want to believe today rather than exercize critical and rational thought. I think laziness may be involved here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×